Hillary has had 113 minutes of network news pre-election coverage, Bernie 10.

[AtomicKitten]

* edited to add video.

And Donald Trump has gotten more nightly network news coverage than the entire Democratic field combined.
No mention of Martin O'Malley.

Seems legit, right?

<snip>

The report found, for instance, that the Republican primary race has received more than twice as much coverage as the Democratic contest. “Besides the fact that there are many more Republican candidates than Democratic ones, the GOP debates have made much more news than the Democrats’ (debates),” Tyndall noted.

Republican frontrunner Donald Trump, unsurprisingly, is the most-covered candidate in the race. In fact, he alone has gotten more airtime (234 minutes) than the entire Democratic field (226 minutes).

<snip>

Democratic favorite Hillary Clinton is the second-most-covered candidate, at 113 minutes.

Two other things stand out: First, Vice President Joe Biden, who flirted with a run but ultimately stayed out of the Democratic race, got far more coverage (56 minutes) than Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont (10 minutes), who actually is running and polled well for much of the summer and fall.

<snip>

The takeaway for candidates is a bit disheartening: If you’re not winning, saying outrageous things, or embroiled in an email scandal, it can be difficult to garner the attention you think you deserve. Candidates like Cruz, Sanders, Jeb Bush and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) — who aren’t natural headline makers, like Trump — have to hope that when the calendar flips to an election year, the coverage will increase -- significantly.

link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/12/07/donald-trump-has-gotten-more-nightly-network-news-coverage-than-the-entire-democratic-field-combined/

[HerbChestnut]

1. Surprise, surprise, surprise

[UglyGreed]

2. Ah the good old media

I bet most of the Bernie coverage is negative or somehow linked to Hillary.

[Tommy2Tone]

4. C'mon they are all negative all the time.

For both candidates.

[lewebley3]

35. You may be right I don't trust the people supporting Bernie

[Tommy2Tone]

3. Hillary has had 113 minutes of network news pre-election coverage, Bernie 10.

Of which Hillary nearly all were negative. Get back to me when you see a positive media story about either of the Democratic nominees.

[HerbChestnut]

5. You know the old trope

Any coverage is good coverage. It doesn't matter if all people see is negative stuff about a candidate. Look at all the Trump coverage.

[AtomicKitten]

6. Yet the 2 most covered, Clinton & Trump, are the front-runners. Coincidence? I think not.

That "negative" coverage you speak of doesn't appear to be damaging at all; in fact, the MSM is driving the election.

[riversedge]

12. Even with Hillary's negative coverage -she surges in the polls compared to Sanders.

[AtomicKitten]

13. Sure if covering her townhalls, speeches, rallies, and pressers is negative - which it is not.

113 minutes covering her speeches, townhalls, rallies, and pressers

- compared to -

10 minutes of coverage for Bernie in the same timeframe.

Seems legit, right? <sarcasm for the sarcasm-impaired>

[riversedge]

15. Well, I only watch the networks which were measured in the article--and until

recently--MOST of what the news -generally abc covered was the Benghazi email crap. so it was negative--(NOT speeches , town-halls or rallies or pressers--for me most of the time. the article does not do a positive -negative analysis.

[AtomicKitten]

17. The MSM is even sponsoring events with Hillary.

Examples:

CNN and Tumblr Team Up for Tonight's Town Hall With Hillary Clinton
http://www.adweek.com/lostremote/cnn-and-tumblr-team-up-for-tonights-townhall-with-hillary-clinton/45678

Hillary Clinton Does New Hampshire Town Hall on ‘Today’ Show
http://www.wmal.com/2015/10/05/hillary-clinton-does-new-hampshire-town-hall-on-today-show/

[KittyWampus]

19. The Media covered Clinton's Congressional hearing and the SOS Email story.

So the point you end up making is that Hillary Clinton is apparently a strong candidate.

She's ahead despite negative coverage.

My candidate is invisible as you or someone else says downthread.

[AtomicKitten]

20. This is specifically election coverage and does not include the hearing.

[OilemFirchen]

39. Bullshit.

From your link:

The takeaway for candidates is a bit disheartening: If you’re not winning, saying outrageous things, or embroiled in an email scandal, it can be difficult to garner the attention you think you deserve.

Where's the evidence to back up your assertion?

[AtomicKitten]

40. Her private server/email problem is a different issue than the Benghazi hearings.

So, hey, bullshit backatya.

[OilemFirchen]

44. No it's not.

Did you watch the eleven hour email-a-thon?

[AtomicKitten]

47. Again, the hearing was not included in the survey of campaign coverage.

'K? Reporting on the hearing, yes, but they did not broadcast the hearing. Also reporting on her private server/emails was included because it's news and relevant to voters.

I have got to get back to work. Someone else will have to explain this to you since you seem impervious to the facts.

[OilemFirchen]

91. Welcome to DU.

Pull the other one. It's got bells on it!

[cascadiance]

96. The wisdom of her *privatizing her email* IS DIFFERENT than focusing on the Bengazi part of it!

The former was NEVER talked about at any length by the media, who wanted to focus on the Bengazi piece of it, which was likely dead in the water any way, but served the *CORPORATE MEDIA*'s agenda of fostering division and ramping up the anti-Clinton types in the Republican party, and at the same time ramping up those defending Clinton on just the Bengazi aspect of this, and NOT whether she made any kind of decent judgement privatizing her email without any explanation as to why she did so that created that mess, and likely doesn't explain others that aren't even discussed.

Bernie was right that this whole focus on the media was a BS exercise in trying to give her attention for "fighting the good fight" on the Bengazi witch hunt front, but said absolutely nothing about the wisdom (or lack thereof) of privatizing her email. The attention was focused on the Bengazi part of the email, not the other part of her email privatization, AND not as much on the other issues that the Americans deal with every day in being screwed like so much of the middle class is these days, which is what Bernie would like us to focus on.

[Tommy2Tone]

34. You can't compare Trump coverage with Hillary's

It's not even close because the more bat shit crazy he becomes the higher his numbers rise. Then again his supporters are insane.

[Cali_Democrat]

7. Much of the coverage of Hillary has been negative with a particular focus on the email nontroversy

No coverage is better than negative coverage.

Bernie has benefited from the media.

He's getting almost no scrutiny.

[Turn CO Blue]

42. Not exactly. Her campaign coverage was 113 mins and other coverage was 117 mins (separate)

the 117 minutes is a count of news stories related to being Sec of State was counted separately from campaign coverage.

snip...
The campaign for the front-runner on the other side of the aisle, Hillary Clinton, was covered for 113 minutes. (Coverage of Clinton controversies dating to her time as Secretary of State was counted separately, and totaled an additional 117 minutes, more than her campaign proper.)

http://money.cnn.com/2015/12/06/media/donald-trump-nightly-news-coverage/

I tried to find a direct report on the Tyndall Report, but found the site a little difficult to move around in. Might look later.

So technically her total coverage was 230 minutes in the news Jan-Nov, 113 of that specific to her campaign.

Bernie had ten minutes total in nearly a FULL YEAR. So your assertion that he's "getting no scrutiny" is pretty much moot. He is not breaking out enough to get that kind of intense media attention from TV producers, just like they are not giving that kind of attention or scrutiny to MOM, Cruz, Kasich, on policy or differing ideas or background, etc. unless something changes.


OFF TOPIC, SORT OF - This morning I was trying to get a dollar value for all of Trump's free campaign press (from pundits, to nightly news, to appearing on SNL, appearing on talk shows) - and had already come across the figures in the OP, while researching it from a different perspective.

There can be no doubt that Trump has received tens of millions if not billions of dollars' worth of free campaign air time.

Just trying to get some rate, that CNN blogwriter figures that a 30 second ad block is usually $5000 - multiply that by all the stations/affiliates - and every minute he is on air is worth a lot of dollars. Maybe millions of dollars, if he wanted comparable coverage.

SNL gave him 12 minutes, for example.





___________
I like Hillary. I like Bernie. I despise cherry-picking and irrational rhetoric.

[Blue_Adept]

8. I thought the old media didn't matter anyway?

all the cool kids get their news from twitter and facebook.

[restorefreedom]

14. i believe that is true

most millenials anyway and many middle agers.

the older folks who rely on the teevee (and watch a lot of fox) are probably primarily trump or cruz supporters, so the coverage is almost meaningless

[AtomicKitten]

16. Social media is an equal opportunity venue, the MSM has baked-in bias with selective coverage.

[think]

24. Many people especially older people still get their news from the MSM. And the "news" they receive

sucks. Infotainment provided by some of the largest corporate conglomerates in existence.

Corporate media entertains and doesn't inform. It's sad how ignorant they keep much of America...

[merrily]

9. It's been obvious that the fix has been in.

[AtomicKitten]

11. They're covering Clinton's/Trump's townhalls, rallies, speeches, and pressers - a distinct advantage

... over the lesser known candidates. O'Malley is virtually invisible.

[OilemFirchen]

43. No they aren't.

This is about network news programs. You're conflating cable with broadcast in a misguided effort to prove something that doesn't exist.

[AtomicKitten]

49. Reporting on but not broadcasting of the hearing. Got it?

[OilemFirchen]

51. The hearing was not broadcast on network news...

and I never suggested otherwise.

All of this is chin music anyway, as the "report" referenced doesn't seem to be readily available. Until such time as it is posted, the entire discussion is useless.

[Prixen]

10. Give me te positive/negative coverage analysis, please

If you may.

[KittyWampus]

18. What shallow reporting. The author ends it by mentioning "headline news"

yet fails to mention that Hillary was in headline news BESIDES campaigning for President.

She was subjected to a Congressional hearing and reporting over the 'email' nonsense.

[AtomicKitten]

21. That's because the congressional hearing was not included in the survey of election coverage.

[oasis]

22. Hillary's campaign message is considerably broader, which merits more coverage.

[AtomicKitten]

25. FFS, that's a ridiculous notion. It's the media's job to provide equitable campaign coverage.

[MeNMyVolt]

31. Fine, since you've already been informed that it was mostly....

.. negative coverage, then the media should go after Jean and the college crap. Or the out of wedlock birth. Or a half dozen other things.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the media should be "going after" Sanders, nor Clinton, but a post crying about media minutes when you sure as hell know what those minutes were, is disingenuous at best.

[AtomicKitten]

37. And I've corrected that notion by pointing out the MSM is covering her events in their entirety.

Sponsoring some, in fact (see upthread). That coverage is a distinct advantage.

[Ichingcarpenter]

36. Which is why the media doesn't talk about the real issues

and misdirect and redirect the national conversation away from the real problems of this nation
income inequality, social injustices, military, priorities and the loss of middle class and the abuse of those below that equation.

Hillary to me is part of their game, and they don't care who wins
since they are all part of their cabal.......... Bernie? Not so much.

[AtomicKitten]

38. It's all bullshit and fluff with the MSM. Feel-good coverage and contrived controversy.

And people here mainly post polling & endorsements - not issue-oriented OPs.

Sometimes it seems Bernie is the only serious candidate.

[Ichingcarpenter]

54. Useful idiots,

useful idiot is a term for people perceived as propagandists for a cause whose goals they are not fully aware of

or

agents of influence

or those that are both

Which is why I normally stay out of this place.

and try to give some the bigger picture.

[senz]

56. +1000 -- true and well-said!

[Ichingcarpenter]

26. Hillary's campaign message is considerably broader

by who?.................. The Media?

I don't like baloney and this statement smells, tastes and looks like it
good thing I didn't step in it

[dpatbrown]

23. Incumbent!

It just makes it more incumbent for us to get the word out. You know what is said about GOTV.

[pnwmom]

27. Well, 11 hours of that was one Benghazi panel. Plus commentary.

And how many hours have they devoted to her emails?

[AtomicKitten]

28. Again, the hearing was not included in the survey of campaign coverage.

However, it includes coverage of her private email server and its implications. That remains a relevant consideration for voters. But as I noted upthread, the MSM is sponsoring events with her and covering her townhalls, rallies, pressers, etc. in their entirety, a distinct advantage over the lesser-known candidates, particularly M'OM who has been rendered virtually invisible.

[Agschmid]

29. And that time was probably mostly negative...

Yet she is still in the lead in most polls.

[AtomicKitten]

30. They are covering her events in their entirety. That's a distinct advantage.

[orpupilofnature57]

32. MSM= Misanthropic Sycophant Monsters who have the same boss as Hillary, the 1% .

[AtomicKitten]

33. I am off to work now. Have a great day. Cheers.

[Treant]

41. Is it OK

That I found Sanders deeply distasteful after only minimal coverage and couldn't possibly stomach any more?

Sorry, but that's the way it is. I wanted to like him. I just couldn't.

[Maedhros]

45. What is distasteful about the man? [n/t]

[Treant]

48. I'm sorry,

I've learned not to engage with ardent Sanders supporters because I dislike being insulted. Anybody using the Senator's photo as an avatar is probably pretty ardent.

Suffice to say I don't like him, won't be voting for him in the primaries, and won't offer anything more than extremely grudging support in the generals if he's the candidate. Fortunately, his ascendancy to the Presidential candidate seems unlikely.

I'm not thrilled with Mrs. Clinton, either, but at least don't have an instant negative response to her.

[Maedhros]

57. I think it's fair to say that one of this country's most glaring issues

is that Hillary can do this:

...but people find Bernie Sanders distasteful.

[Treant]

63. And there it is.

The backhanded bullshit insults from the Grand Cult of Personality.

Y'know what? See you after Super Tuesday. I'll vote for Mrs. Clinton. You vote for whomever you feel will do the best job.

[Trajan]

61. Is it an insult to ignore you?

Gee I hope not ...

[Treant]

64. No, it is not.

Just as it's not an insult for me to ignore you. Thank you so much for your considered response to my statement, or even something so simple as a basic disagreement.

No, you have to go right to sticking your fingers in your ears.

As I said, goodbye. Clearly Bernie Sanders Underground (Cult Entrance in Rear) is not the appropriate place for me until it turns back into DU after the Primaries.

[neverforget]

79. Oh the irony.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=891944

"The backhanded bullshit insults from the Grand Cult of Personality."

"Clearly Bernie Sanders Underground (Cult Entrance in Rear)"

Clearly, it's okay for you to insult others.

[MeNMyVolt]

50. I know you didn't ask me, but I'm a little afraid of him.

Love how he votes, and many of his speeches, but his temperament worries me. I like calm, cool, and collected, much like our current president. But I know you dislike PBO, so this won't mean much to you.

[Maedhros]

58. I found his temperament admirable.

Forceful, yet not hysterical. We need a President and a leader that is going to fight for us, not nod sagely and capitulate.

[MeNMyVolt]

59. Well, that's a difference between you and me.

That's fine. I still want our candidates to be successful against any Puke. I'm guessing you may feel the same. Life doesn't always give you everything you want.

Best wishes Maedhros.

[Treant]

65. Something like that.

The "Get off my lawn" old man thing just wasn't working for me, and I'm not confident of it working on the international stage. Nor was his performance on the terrorism question in the second debate anywhere in the ballpark of acceptable.

Although in my case, I also don't give him anywhere near a perfect score on his votes, but realize he has to kowtow to his constituents just like any other career politician. He's just fortunate to have a relatively homogenous, mostly-pretty-left constituency.

[Treant]

66. Unfortunately,

this is the end of the conversation. Executive decision, I'm out of here as far as the campaign threads go. I'm officially annoyed, and I've had it with the infighting. I'll return after Super Tuesday (or, I guess, more accurately after the winner in the primaries is obvious).

Simple opinion and reasoned discussion no longer seems to have any place here and I really, really object to being treated poorly...or worse, as if I can't be trusted to make my own decisions.

[MeNMyVolt]

69. I hope you hang in here,

It's not a great board now, but it once was. You can help it be that way again. FWIW.

[orpupilofnature57]

62. He tells the truth, no profit in that.

[Maedhros]

67. Nah, it's just meme propagation.

Trying to inculcate the idea that Sanders is "surly."

[blackspade]

46. It's a feature of the system.

Mission accomplished for DWS.

[AtomicKitten]

73. As in it's not a bug, it's a feature. You've got that right.

[cheapdate]

52. The Hillary media coverage is overwhelmining negaitive, though.

Mostly with lead-ins like "...new evidence emerges" or "...facing tough questions for her role...."

[Thinkingabout]

53. Where is the category on talk show appearances?

Looks like first to Trump who is currently leading in the GOP primary and Hillary who is currently leading in the DNC primary.

[OilemFirchen]

55. Where is this report?

I'm embarrassed to have even participated minimally in this conversation. Any "report" that suggests that Sanders received a total of ten minutes coverage across three networks, seven days a week, for the year so far is utter and total shit.

What a WOT.

[AtomicKitten]

70. The data was obtained from the Tyndall Report for the WaPo article I posted. * Edited for video.

Last edited Fri Dec 11, 2015, 12:31 AM - Edit history (2)

You seem agitated over this story. It's simply a pre-election survey of network news coverage. It's of very narrow scope. It excludes cable TV, talk shows, CPAN, coverage of hearings, etc. I haven't looked at network news in a very long time, but I can't say I was surprised when I read about how CNN and NBC covered and coordinated events (town halls, etc.) with Hillary Clinton. It starts to explain the 113 minutes they've spent covering her campaign.

But it does make the MSM look like shit that they could only spare 10 minutes total to cover Bernie. Certainly no events were covered to any extent, if at all. The MSM is driving the narrative this primary season. They did it in 2007 when it was all about Giuliani and Hillary 24/7. It's no wonder more and more people are turning to Roku and the internet.

[OilemFirchen]

77. That link leads to the home page of the so-called "Tyndall Report".

It's perhaps the most inept website I've encountered in many years. Most importantly, there's no evidence of this vaunted study.

I'm guessing the WP was duped by a press release from a moron incapable of posting his own "content".

What a fucking waste of time.

[AtomicKitten]

78. Nonsense. Analyst Andrew Tyndall is respected in the industry of network data collection.

The fact that you don't like his findings is really beside the point. Gratuitously trashing him as a result is just plain ignorant and an insufferably rude debate tactic.

You can read about him here: http://ajrarchive.org/Article.asp?id=3843

PBS interview transcript: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media-jan-june02-tyndall_02-13

[OilemFirchen]

80. What findings?

C'mon. Show us the report. Don't be so coy.

[AtomicKitten]

81. FFS. Read the entire Washington Post article I linked to in my OP.

It covers the findings. If you are dissatisfied, tough shit; simply being unpleasant and contrary does not an argument make.

Bye.

[OilemFirchen]

83. Hilarious.

No doubt you'd be just as swayed by an article quoting a poll without actually citing the poll, yes? And you'd double-down if the poll was nowhere to be found, correct?

Cite the report.

Oh look! Here's a link to the "Tyndall Weekly". Surely, it's in there somewhere, eh?

[AtomicKitten]

85. Oh dear, so angry. Why are Clinton fans so angry? Worried about a 2008 faceplant redux?

[OilemFirchen]

88. Angry?

No thanks.

Now then... some unknown yutz regurgitating the same unfounded "data" is evidence of what, exactly?

[Enthusiast]

60. Kicked and recommended! This is fucking horrible. Horribly unfair.

[AtomicKitten]

72. It is bullshit and has strangled O'Malley's candidacy in the crib. Damn shame, really.

[Beaverhausen]

68. Hello! It's called ratings

The networks are about one thing - advertising dollars. They need high ratings to make the most money from advertising.

Now do you see why they are showcasing the most 'popular' or 'newsworthy' (for better or worse) candidates?

[AtomicKitten]

71. The MSM are driving the narrative just like they did in 2007 promoting Giuliani v. Hillary 24/7.

It's clear they crave bombastic bullshit and they've picked who they want to cover. It's show time!

I wonder if they'd mind terribly if we vote before the coronation. "Sorry to bother. I'd like to vote, please."

[Enthusiast]

93. Untrue. The networks have a biased agenda. The agenda is poorly disguised corporate propaganda.

The bottom line and ratings are secondary.

The networks are told which issue or candidate will receive the most and what kind of treatment.

Now do we see? LMFAO! Yes, we see.

[Betty Karlson]

74. Are you surprised?

The establishment will use every dirty trick in the book to prevent Sanders' presidency. A media black-out is only one of those dirty tricks. DWS and her limited debate schedule on low television viewership evenings is another. Need we go on?

[AtomicKitten]

75. Blatant audacity. Breathtaking, really.

[Betty Karlson]

76. Cynical, in my opinion.

and graceless.

[brooklynite]

82. I see we're back to the "the media is unfair" complaints...

To paraphrase a question asked of Clinton supporters: if you're so confident he's winning, why are you worried?

[redstateblues]

84. Being a BS supporter means

There's always something to be angry about. Anger fuels his campaign.

[OilemFirchen]

86. Media Quack Calls Meteorologist "Pornographer" for Reporting the Weather

Avid news watcher and "consultant" Andrew Tyndall called ABC News meteorologist Ginger Zee a "pornographer" on Friday because she spends all her time on television talking about the weather instead of using her weather segment to talk about climate change. What nerve she has for doing her job!

The AP wire story—"Weather porn? Storms take over evening news"—explores whether or not the media's recent uptick in weather talk is related to hype and a play for ratings rather than a renewed interest in science. (Hint: they conclude it's half-and-half.) Tyndall focused his half-baked opinion on Ginger Zee, whom you may remember delivered a glorious smackdown to a sexist jerk earlier this summer after he called her "the most ugly weather girl i.v seen on tv."

...

Tyndall's qualifications to make such statements include the fact that he "has personally watched every single weekday network nightly newscast since the summer of 1987."

http://thevane.gawker.com/media-quack-calls-meteorologist-pornographer-for-repo-1671920768

[AtomicKitten]

87. "Gawker"? LOLOLOL. Great source, bucko! Are you for real?! LOL.

[OilemFirchen]

89. Yes, Gawker.

What the hell is "Secular Talk"?

[rhett o rick]

92. Funny how Democrats were united on how the Corp-Media was pro Conservative.

Now that they support HRC, some Democrats are changing their tunes. Situational ethics.

[Major Hogwash]

94. Right up until May 2015.

When Hillary declared her intention to run again.
Now some of them recite polls taken by the media like they are the gospel, totally scientific, absolutely honest, completely forthright, and certainly beneficial.
Which of course, they aren't.
But, the fact that so many Hillary supporters come here on a daily basis to bash Bernie tells me that they are scared that she will lose again.
Despite the polls.

I guarantee you that nobody in Iowa is going to cast their vote for Hillary if she is still being investigated by the FBI at that time.

[Scuba]

95. The fix is in.

[demmiblue]

97. K&R